Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Poiuytrewq]

More Defence political spin. Politics trying to let us down gently, and to make it look really convincing, let's spend a few Million in the process, but as long as we get away with the Decision to reduce T26 Hulls and therefore escort numbers, Result!

You may be right but £9.25bn should have been enough to replace the Frigate fleet with 13 Tier1 escorts.

[Aethulwulf]

New CML/BAE web site promoting Leander design...

http://www.leanderfrigate.com

...but Babcock's Team31 web site has vanished.

[RetroSicotte]

"and bristling with enormous firepower. She is the epitome of UK naval engineering:"

I know BAE is trying to sell it and all, marketing speak always does this. But given the Type 31s design is to explicitly be a barely capable ship simply to be cheap with nothing fancy on it, this line is pretty "special".

[Caribbean]

Leander is available in four sizes (99m, 102m, 117m, 120m).

Well, if nothing else, the exercise seems to have prompted BAE to actually think about what it can do with the old VT-based River design. Those lengths look like River B2, Avenger, Cutlass and Leander

The fact that the BAE site is still up and running, but not the Team 31 site implies, to me, that the issue was genuinely more to do with compliance than financial or technical issues. When the competition re-opens, it will be interesting to see what has changed in the conditions.

[donald_of_tokyo]

New CML/BAE web site promoting Leander design...
http://www.leanderfrigate.com

Leander_performance.jpg

Note that it states, Electric drive speed is 12knots, with 700kWx2 = 1400 kW power.

For comparison, Khareef's electric power was 280kWx2 = 560kW for 7.5 knots. Power is 2.5 time larger. In general, in low speed power needed is proportional to the square of the speed. So, 7.5 x sqrt(2.5) = 11.8 knots, well correlated.

Khareef_MTU.jpg

Other points, I am still looking into.

...but Babcock's Team31 web site has vanished.

Oh really, it is lost ...

[Poiuytrewq]

When the competition re-opens, it will be interesting to see what has changed in the conditions.

Hopefully the budget

[bobp]

Interesting that the Babcock website has gone was their bid non compliant?

[Caribbean]

Hopefully the budget

Indeed - let's see if those hints of more money being available in "certain circumstances" prove to have substance

Interesting that the Babcock website has gone was their bid non compliant?

Personally, that's the way I would interpret it. I think they came up with a serious contender (Possibly more to the RN's liking than the other contender - I suspect the fact that the RDN were able to bring a basic ship into use, then substantially upgrade it over time, has not escaped people's notice). Let's see how the new RFI gets tweaked

[bobp]

Bearing in mind the requirement of Intellectual Property Rights and British Design, did the Babcock bid fall short in those areas.

[NickC]

Note that it states, Electric drive speed is 12knots, with 700kWx2 = 1400 kW power.

For comparison, Khareef's electric power was 280kWx2 = 560kW for 7.5 knots. Power is 2.5 time larger. In general, in low speed power needed is proportional to the square of the speed. So, 7.5 x sqrt(2.5) = 11.8 knots, well correlated.

Wondering if apples to oranges as displacement of Leander ~ 1000 tons /35% heavier than the Khareef invalidates the figures ?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Note that it states, Electric drive speed is 12knots, with 700kWx2 = 1400 kW power.
For comparison, Khareef's electric power was 280kWx2 = 560kW for 7.5 knots. Power is 2.5 time larger. In general, in low speed power needed is proportional to the square of the speed. So, 7.5 x sqrt(2.5) = 11.8 knots, well correlated.

Wondering if apples to oranges as displacement of Leander ~ 1000 tons /35% heavier than the Khareef invalidates the figures ?

It will. But, longer hull with the same cross-section will mitigates it. So, yes, it is not that simple calculation, thanks.

[Timmymagic]

he fact that the BAE site is still up and running, but not the Team 31 site implies, to me, that the issue was genuinely more to do with compliance than financial or technical issues. When the competition re-opens, it will be interesting to see what has changed in the conditions.

I wouldn't read anything into it. The BAE Leander website would have been under development/build for months and months, they probably contracted a web design company in and given that it was getting delivered regardless of the status of the programme they decided to publish.
As to BMT they're probably launching their own website soon. As a publicly traded company you would expect them to have made a public statement to the stock market if they had actually withdrawn, in fact they'd be legally obliged to.

[Timmymagic]

Bearing in mind the requirement of Intellectual Property Rights and British Design, did the Babcock bid fall short in those areas.

The question for me around that is fairly straightforward. Have the Danish builders sold any Iver Huitfeldt class ships in the last 10 years? Is there any prospect of them using the hull for anything else, or a prospect of any sales in the future? I'd argue that the answer to both questions is zero. At that point any IP discussion and cost should be fairly simple, they have an asset that is genrerating them zero revenue, they have the potential for it to generate some revenue. They'd be fools to hold out for too much as they risk getting nothing as opposed to something.

[Poiuytrewq]

Have the Danish builders sold any Iver Huitfeldt class ships in the last 10 years? Is there any prospect of them using the hull for anything else, or a prospect of any sales in the future?

....I'd argue that the answer to both questions is zero.

So if this design has been rejected in every other Frigate competition it has been entered in, why is it now deemed the best possible design to make up around 40%+ of the UK's Frigate fleet?

It's all about saving money and I think the UK could do a lot better if HMG would back a sensible procurement strategy with a sensible budget.

[Aethulwulf]

New CML/BAE web site promoting Leander design...
http://www.leanderfrigate.com

Leander_performance.jpg

Note that it states, Electric drive speed is 12knots, with 700kWx2 = 1400 kW power.

As far as I can tell the only interesting new information is:

•Electric drive speed is 12 knots
•To accommodate 8 iso containers, 1 can be held on 02 Deck (where?), 3 in the aft starboard Mission Bay, one in each of the other three Mission Bays, and one in the hangar. I would assume that if the Mission Bays and Hanger are used to hold boats and a helicopter, the number of iso containers will drop to 2 or 3.
•The mission bay has direct access to the flight deck
•"Customers will be intrigued by the large hangar", but no mention of how large (i.e. Merlin yes/no).

[Timmymagic]

So if this design has been rejected in every other Frigate competition it has been entered in, why is it now deemed the best possible design to make up around 40%+ of the UK's Frigate fleet?

Which other competitions has it actually been entered into? I'm not aware of any.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Call me easy but im relatively impressed by how Leander is maturing on paper. I actually think that its present form offers the basis of a truly useful, capable ship. It may not be gold plated, but it could well be perfectly credible. In fact, the only real changes that need to be made come from the customer side.

If there was a firm specification made for the ship to possess a credible ASW capability then i think you could end up with a capable, low cost (relatively speaking) escort in a fashion not entirely removed from how the RN approached the balance of our fleet in the Second World War. Leander is certainly capable of being made as such it would seem.

Most interesting in my opinion was the reference in the brochure to a "twin" towed array arrangement.

http://51.38.82.119/Cammell-Laird-DLSize-Leander.pdf

[dmereifield]

Call me easy but im relatively impressed by how Leander is maturing on paper. I actually think that its present form offers the basis of a truly useful, capable ship. It may not be gold plated, but it could well be perfectly credible. In fact, the only real changes that need to be made come from the customer side.

If there was a firm specification made for the ship to possess a credible ASW capability then i think you could end up with a capable, low cost (relatively speaking) escort in a fashion not entirely removed from how the RN approached the balance of our fleet in the Second World War. Leander is certainly capable of being made as such it would seem.

Most interesting in my opinion was the reference in the brochure to a "twin" towed array arrangement.

http://51.38.82.119/Cammell-Laird-DLSize-Leander.pdf

what's interesting is that it states: "ASW – Hull mounted sonar and twin tow array" as if it comes as standard, whereas elsewhere you get other capabilities presented as options (e.g. "Can also be" such as in the following "(Vertical Launching System (Strike Length) can also be fitted midships to fire a mixed load of AAW, ASuW, ASW and land attack"

[benny14]

What is the difference between the 117m and 120m variant? Flightdeck?

Classification:
Lloyds Naval Ship Rules ✠100A1, NS2 Frigate, SA1, AIR, ESA, RSA, LA, LAP, TA2, LMC, PSMRL, CCS, RAS(ABV)(NT), ELS, FIRE**, ESC**, LSAE**, CEPAC2, MD, SH, POL(I, IV, V, VI, AFS), ENV(A, BWT, OW, IHM, NOx-3, SOx, RS)




This one seems to show a 4.5 on the front.


Interesting above view.

[shark bait]

Note that it states, Electric drive speed is 12knots, with 700kWx2 = 1400 kW power.

About time we have a modern propulsion system proposed for the next generation! Finally this might be something that is ASW capable, it is just a little bit slow.

[NickC]

Note that it states, Electric drive speed is 12knots, with 700kWx2 = 1400 kW power.

About time we have a modern propulsion system proposed for the next generation! Finally this might be something that is ASW capable, it is just a little bit slow.

The Damen Sigma 10514 LRP 2,575 tons 107 x 14 x 3.75m with two electric motors for total 2,650 kW max speed of 15 knots, cruise 14 knots so slightly surprised if the Leander with a FLD of 4,000? tons per RFI, 117 x 14.6 x 4.5 m on two electric motors for total of only 1,400 kW can achieve 12 knots as its ~1,400 tons heavier.

Whatever the power of the electric motors they would only be useful in an ASW operational mode if they were powered by silenced diesel generators with single-stage resilient engine mounting or preferably double-stage resilient mounting system with intermediate raft for addressing structure-borne noise and acoustic enclosure of for significant attenuation of air-borne noise, the system as used in the new Italian PPA frigates in build where two of their four DG's silenced to power its two 1.4 MW electric motors.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Leander 120, if added with CAPTAS2 or 4CI (not 4), can be a "good" (if not superb) ASW asset, comparable to NATO allie's ASW frigates (Nansen, FTI, M-class, PPA...).

- a 57 mm gun
- 12 CAMM
- 2x 30 mm gun and 20mm CIWS
- new ESM and decoy kits
- 25 knots in 2 Diesel full power for dash, and 12 knots in 2 motor full power for ping.
(+ 8 NSM)
(+ 2 twin AS torpedo tubes)
+ CAPTAS4CI
+ Ship Torpedo Defense System

I think it will be a new generation Type-14 frigate, with all the lessons leaned incorporated = a single role ASW "long-rage corvette", with basic hull large enough to handle future growth expected.
- I think "electric motor 12 knots" + CAPTAS4CI is the "world-class ASW assets", in 2020s.
- Other armaments are basically for self-defense, good enough for patrol tasking and as a (junior) member of CVTF. Here, the fact that CAMM will cover around the ship (local area AAW) is important. Modern agile ASM is not coming in strait forward and sometimes does big maneuvers. The ship will need to shoot down all the ASM leaking from T45 AAW cover, just to defend herself, which in turn defends all the assets located 5-10 km around her.
- Too small for future growth was the biggest issue in T14, but it is handled in Leander design.
-- If it were drones, Leander has 2 Alcoves = mission bays in addition to the 2 for 2 RHIBs. Leander is ready to handle drones.
-- If it were new communication/CMS added, Leander can happily ban the ISO container space amidship to house them. A single role ASW 2nd-tier escort do not need to handle HADR (as is T23 now).

The margins are not large enough, I agree. But, in near future, RN will be lacking resources and "intensive upgrades" are un-likely to happen. Note that "adding ASW" is already assuming significant more resources, and now still in "fantasy" region.

[RetroSicotte]

with all the lessons leaned incorporated

The "lessons learned" being incorporated were what made the Type 26 GCS. It isn't what it is for no reason.

This is the lessons being forgotten once again in the chase to the bottom for who can cut the most, and thinking that "on paper" numbers of hulls equal real world military capability.

[Pongoglo]

This one seems to show a 4.5 on the front.

Most definitely a Mk8 indeed......

[donald_of_tokyo]

with all the lessons leaned incorporated

The "lessons learned" being incorporated were what made the Type 26 GCS. It isn't what it is for no reason.

This is the lessons being forgotten once again in the chase to the bottom for who can cut the most, and thinking that "on paper" numbers of hulls equal real world military capability.

Top issue is lack of resource. Any military procurement cannot be free from resource. Call for more resource is one thing, analyzing "what a Leander can do" is another.